| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor D.J. Barnard (Chairman), Councillor Fiona Hill (Vice-Chairman), Councillor John Bishop, Councillor Paul Clark, Councillor Jean Green, Councillor Lorna Kercher, Councillor Ian Mantle, Councillor M.R.M. Muir, Councillor Mike Rice, Councillor Harry Spencer - Smith and Councillor M.E. Weeks |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Joanne Cousins (Senior Planning Officer), Richard Tiffin (Area Planning Officer), John Chapman (Area Planning Officer), Nurainetta Katenu (Property and Planning Lawyer) and Hilary Dineen (Committee and Member Services Officer). |
| ALSO PRESENT: | At the Commencement of the meeting, Councillors Julian Cunningham, Tony Hunter and David Levett and approximately 15 members of the public including registered speakers. |
| Meeting attachments |
Agenda Front Pages Audio Recording of Meeting |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 56 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Bill Davidson and Alan Millard. |
Noted | ||
| 57 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Control Committee held on 10 November 2016 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 58 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. |
Noted | ||
| 59 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. (2) The Chairman advised that Members of the public and the press may use their devices to film/photograph, or make a sound recording of the meeting, but he asked them to not use flash and to disable any beeps or other sound notifications that emitted from their devices; (3) The Chairman reminded Members and speakers that in line with Council policy, this meeting would be audio recorded and that speakers should use their microphones when speaking, as comments made without their use would not be recorded; (4) The Chairman clarified that each group of speakers would have a maximum of 5 minutes during which to address the Committee. The bell would sound after 4 1/2 minutes as a warning, and then again at 5 minutes to signal that the presentation must cease; (5) Members were reminded that any declarations of interest in respect of any business set out in the agenda should be declared as either a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest or Declarable Interest and were required to notify the Chairman of the nature of any interest declared at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda. Members declaring a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest must withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the item. Members declaring a Declarable Interest which required they leave the room under Paragraph 7.4 of the Code of Conduct, could speak on the item, but must leave the room before the debate and vote. |
Noted | ||
| 60 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Chairman confirmed that the registered Councilor advocates and speakers were present. The Committee and Member Services Officer advised that one registered speaker had given their apologies. |
Noted | ||
| 61 |
16/01557/1 - LAND BETWEEN KNEBWORTH STATION CAR PARK AND FERGUSON HOUSE, PARK LANE, KNEBWORTH Report Plan The Area Planning Officer (John Chapman) presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. He advised that there were three updates to the report as follows: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH In respect of Paragraph 3.3 of the report, Environmental Health had requested an additional condition requiring that, prior to the first occupation of flats and dwellings, the noise mitigation measures relating to glazing and ventilation as detailed in the Spectrum Acoustics consultants report should be implemented and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details. SECTION 106 AGREEMENT In respect of Paragraph 4.3.6 of the report the figure for Library Services should be amended to read £1634 and the figure for Waste Collection and Recycling should be amended to read £402. CONDITION 8 An additional sentence should be included in Condition 8 to read "thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with this approved plan". Members queried the wording of the second bullet point of Paragraph 3.5 and the recommendation 5(b) in the report. The Area Planning Officer advised that, in respect of Paragraph 3.5 the words "In addition the statement at" should be deleted and that the recommendation 5(b) should be the standard Environmental condition imposed on many permissions. In respect of the third bullet point of Paragraph 3.5 of the report Members asked for clarification regarding what the impact on current residents may consist of. Members asked for details regarding the planting scheme for the boundary that appeared in the drawings. The Area Planning Officer advised that the planting shown in the drawing was indicative as this was an outline application with landscaping reserved. All details of the landscaping would need to be presented to the Planning Department for agreement. Parish Councillor Roger Willcocks, Knebworth Parish Council, objecting to the application, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. He reminded Members that the proposed development was described in the report as three story building, but they were in fact three storeys with a roof on top. The Parish Council would be happier if the roof and the top floor were combined in order to fit in with the other houses in the area, which were two storeys with a roof. The proposal was an overdevelopment of the site with a ratio of 92 dwellings per hectare, which is a lot for any area, but particularly for a village setting. Calculations showed that there would be the equivalent of 207 rooms per hectare, which was the density of the middle of cities. This was trying to pack too much into a small site. The final objection was in respect of parking. Paragraph 4.3.3 of the report gave details of the standard in respect of the number of parking spaces provided which in this case should number 23, however only 13 spaces were provided which was much less than the Council's standard. Knebworth already had parking issues, which would be added to by building more dwellings without sufficient parking spaces. Members asked for clarification regarding the Parish Council objections. Parish Councillor Willcocks confirmed that, even if the building height was reduced, but the number of dwelling remained the same, they would continue to object on the grounds of the lack of parking spaces. The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Willcocks for his presentation. Councillor Steve Hemingway, Councillor Advocate objecting to the application, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. He informed Members that he supported the comments made by Parish Councillor Willcocks. He advised that Knebworth had a chronic and escalating parking problem. The introduction of a Controlled Parking Zone had only served to displace the problems to other areas. The core of the parking issues was the railway station, which was right next to this development. The large single dwellings around the station had gradually been developed to provide more dwellings on the land, many with insufficient parking. There was no on street parking around this development and yellow lines had been introduced to control commuter parking. In the evenings cars were parked on Park Lane, which turned this road into a slalom course and during the day the station car park was completely full. The proposed development would be 12 dwelling on 1/3 of an acre, which was an excessive development that would cause even, more parking problems. He urged Members to do what they could to scale this development down and commented that ideally this land would be changed into a car park to support the 500,000 rail passenger movements. The Chairman thanked Councillor Hemingway for his presentation. Ms Gaenor Parry, Applicant's Agent, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. She advised Members that her clients were aware of the parking issues in Knebworth village, but building on land immediately adjacent to the railway line and providing car parking on a one for one basis was, in their view, perfectly acceptable. Anyone living in the proposed development would be foolish not to use the train to go where they want. Knebworth was one of the most sustainable villages in the District and the need was for housing not car parking. When people realised that it was inconvenient to get to the station by car they would find an alternative means of transport. As stated in the report, the redevelopment of this brown field site, within the core of Knebworth was entirely compliant with the Council's policy and emerging Local Plan policies and was also compatible with the polices of the National Planning Policy Framework. The presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread for both planning making and decision taking was at the heart of the NPPF. This site could not reasonable be viewed as anything but sustainable as the location was immediately adjacent to the East Coast main railway line station, which had excellent links to local towns and further afield. Knebworth was a large and vibrant village providing a wide range of shops and services, all within an easy walk of his development site. Whilst the Parish Council and residents object to the provision of only one parking space per unit, it was difficult to conceive of a more appropriate development to minimise car parking. To increase parking provision on this site, so close to a railway station and the village centre, flies in the face of achieving a sustainable development. The Corollary to any increase in parking would result in a decrease in the number of dwellings, it could not be right that parking should take precedence or be preferable to providing dwelling. The proposal had been developed having regard to the need to optimise residential on this site and provides a range of dwellings that would assist with the significant shortfall of dwellings in the District. During the course of the application there had been a meaningful dialogue with Council Officers to ensure that the scheme was also appropriate to its location. The scale and mass had been amended to reduce height and the design was altered accordingly. The mix of flats and two bedroomed houses provided a range of accommodation and the overall quality of the design and finish would be to a high standard. The proposal had been designed to be neighbourly and Council Officers' assessment was that there would be no material adverse effect on neighbouring properties. This was an attractive and cohesive scheme that would effect a positive improvement on the area which was currently degraded by poor quality buildings and the railway station car park around it. Ms Parry concluded by asking Members to support the application. The Chairman thanked Ms Parry for her presentation. Members noted that they were considering a revised application and asked for details for the revisions. They also asked several questions including the height of Ferguson Court and whether there was a condition requiring all car parking spaces to be maintained. The Area Planning Officer advised that the original scheme proposed a development of four storeys on the corner of the site, which had been reduced to three storeys following negotiations. In response to the question he advised that Ferguson House was 2 ½ storeys high, with much of the roof space being accommodation; Condition 6 detailed that the car parking should be maintained solely for that purpose, but suggested that it should include reference to the dwellings as well as the flats. There was some discussion regarding the placement of the buildings on the site and the effect this development would have on the bungalows in Dancote and that the height of the proposed development was unacceptable Members accepted that the site was suitable for development, but the application being considered was overbearing and was over development due to its height and bulk The Government advice regarding development in town centres and sustainable locations was that car parking spaces could be reduced, but experience had shown that just because someone bought a property in a sustainable location, near transport links, this did not mean they would not own a car and/or have visitors that arrived in a car. Knebworth was known to have particular parking problems and it was common for there to be parking issues around railway stations. They acknowledged that Knebworth was, to some extent a sustainable location, but the parking in the village was already a major issue and the lack of sufficient parking, which in this case did not meet the requirements of Policy 55 of the Local Plan, would cause more problems. In addition the rail line from Knebworth ran north/south and people would wish to travel in other directions for which they would likely use a car. It was moved and seconded that the application be refused planning permission on the following grounds: 1. Overdevelopment due to height and bulk, therefore failing to take the opportunity to improve the character of the area an the lack of car parking provision in accordance with Policy 55 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 2 with Alterations; 2. The application had not been submitted with a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a completed Unilateral Undertaking or Section 106 Obligation). RESOLVED: That application 16/01557/1 be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out below: (1) By reason of its bulk and height, which thereby fails to take into account the opportunity to improve the character of the area as required by paragraph 64 of the NPPF, and due to the lack of car parking provision in accordance with Policy 55 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 2 with Alterations the proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of the site, contrary to Policy 5 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 2 with Alterations (2) The submitted planning application has not been accompanied by a valid legal undertaking (in the form of a completed Unilateral Undertaking or Section 106 Obligation) securing the provision of the necessary obligations as set out in the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted November 2006). The secure delivery of these obligations is required to mitigate the impact of the development in accordance with the adopted SPD and Policy 51 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations. Proactive Statement Planning permission consent has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted proactively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but it was not felt that the fundamental objections raised had been satisfactorily addressed. The Council therefore acted proactively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. |
Agreed | ||
| 62 |
16/02119/1 - LAND AT GREEN END AND NORTH OF THE COTTAGE, GREEN END, WESTON Report Plan The Area Planning Officer (Richard Tiffin) presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. Councillor Steve Jarvis, Councillor Advocate speaking in support of the application, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. He informed Members that the only issue regarding this application was one of principle in that the site was within the Green Belt and therefore consideration was needed as to whether there were very special circumstances for this development or not. The reasons submitted by the applicant for very special circumstances included that he had been a tenant farmer in Weston for many years/ He planned to retire and hand over the tenanted farm to his son, whilst continuing to provide some support. The main consideration should be whether the development was inappropriate. The National Planning Policy Framework allowed an exception to the presumption against any building in the Green Belt in the case of limited infilling in villages and a number of cases were highlighted in the report, which demonstrated what infilling could be. Green End was not a separate settlement, but was considered by local people to be part of the village of Weston. This area consisted of nine houses and some farm buildings, four of which were between the proposed development site and the village and five were beyond this site therefore the site could not be considered as right on the edge of and would not represent any outward extension of the village. There were no houses on the other side of this road, if an application were made to build on that side he may take a different view. On this side of the road there was a continuous line of buildings, albeit of varying density, from the centre of Weston to the end of Green End, supporting the view that this would be infilling within a village that would not impact the fundamental basis of the Green Belt. Members asked for clarification that there were houses beyond this site that were considered as Green End. Councillor Jarvis confirmed this and commented that these houses were also considered to be part of Weston. He stated that Green End was considered to be the name of the road rather than of a separate settlement. The Chairman thanked Councillor Jarvis for his presentation. Mr James Bailey, Applicant's Agent, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. He stated that the application had been submitted following an extensive consultation process with the residents of the village of Weston and Weston Parish Council. An open evening had been held on the site to enable local people to comment on the application. The Parish Council were supportive of the application and no neighbour objections had been received rather letters of support from neighbours had been submitted. Much consideration had been given to the choosing of the site, the siting of and design of the proposed dwelling, with the pallet of materials being taken from buildings within the village of Weston in order to create a building that would be in keeping with the surrounding area. The development would have no impact on the Conservation Area or wider Green Belt area. There was a dwelling on the site until 1980 called the Galleon, this had now been removed. The development would cause no harm to the Green Belt in this area of the village and would in fact be reinstating a dwelling in this area. Whilst the development was within the Green Belt, it was technically outside the settlement boundary, but had the feel and environment of a village and most notably was in the 30 MPH built up area speed limit as well as having dwellings to either side of the site, The Green Belt Policy was currently being reviewed under the draft Local Plan proposals in which it was noted that the Green Belt in this area of Weston made a limited contribution to the overall Green Belt. The location of this site, together with the comments made in the draft Local Plan meant that this development would have very little impact on the Green Belt, He considered that very special circumstance applied in this case in that the applicant was a life long resident of Weston, who was seeking to create a dwelling on this site to enable his son to take over the tenanted farming operations. This dwelling would enable the applicant to remain part of the community which he grew up in and worked in all of his life. The applicant would be able to have continued involvement in the village and, on a small scale, would contribute to housing targets. There was a grade II listed well within the application site and as part of this application this would be improved and maintained by the applicant, The application provided the best and most suitable development for the site and, where possible, local contractors would be used to undertake the works in order to offer the best economic community benefits. Mr Bailey concluded by stating that the proposed development was appropriate development within the location and the applicant's requirements, combined with local support, constituted the very special circumstances required. He urges the Committee to approve the application. Members asked for clarification as to whether the site was within or without the village boundary and whether there were dwellings further out than the application site Mr Bailey advised that the site was outside of the settlement of Weston ad confirmed that there wee dwelling located further away from the village than this site. The Chairman thanked Mr Bailey for his presentation. The Area Planning Officer advised that there were two main issues, firstly whether this development could be considered an infill plot or not. If Members considered that it was an infill plot then the development would be deemed as appropriate. Paragraph 4.3.6 of the report quoted the applicant's view of the definition of infill as a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage. Most planners would agree with this description. An appeal decision had been received today regarding an application for a dwelling in a built up frottage in Potters Heath Road with dwellings either side of and behind it and therefore better fitted the definition of infill than this site. The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal and stated: "I accept that the site does border on residential properties to either side and there is built development beyond the rear of the site and the site would not result in outward expansion of the settlement, however the site lies beyond a village boundary and is located in the Green Belt. On my site visit I saw that Potters Heath was predominantly a collection of houses and does not constitute a coherent village in the broadest sense of the term. It has no community facilities or services typical of even the smallest villages such as a church or village hall. It does not constitute one of the exceptions under Policy 3 of the North Herts district plan 2007 or Paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework" The Area Planning Officer advised that he was firmly of the view that the site in Weston cold not be construed as an infill site. The corollary issue was whether there were very special circumstances and this was the issue to be determined. He stated that the details considered could not be deemed as very special circumstances and cautioned Members that, if this was accepted as such, then that reason may be used in many future applications and this should be avoided. The Chairman advised that he was aware that the applicant or the applicant's agent had made an offer to Members to visit the site and asked whether any Member had taken up that offer or met with the applicant or the applicant's agent. No Member had done so. Members acknowledged that the application site was not within the boundary of Weston but asked for clarification as to whether it was considered to be within the boundary of Green End. The Area Planning Officer advised that according to the current Local Plan, Weston did not currently have a boundary and there was a proposal to exclude Weston in the emerging Local Plan, although it should be noted that little weight was currently being given to the emerging Local Plan and in any event this sitewould continue to be within the Green Belt. He accepted that Green End was considered as part of Weston and was part of the community of Weston. The Planning Inspector had not, in respect of the Potters Heath decision, based his decision to uphold the decision on the services available in the location but had based his decision on the definition of infill, part of which was that the site was not within a village boundary He advised that he could not construe this site as an infill in any way and cautioned that, if this application were approved, applications for future development would hold more weight because this had been agreed. He suggested that Members concentrate their decision on whether or not there were very special circumstances Members debated whether building on this site could or could not be considered as infill including issues such as the size of the gap between houses, which would make it difficult to consider this site as infill and that it would be wrong to allow the start of ribbon development and therefore continue the linear aspect of Weston. NHDC had consistently fought against coalition of small settlements, which this application would represent. Members considered that the personal circumstances of the applicant could not be considered as very special circumstances as the building would be in place longer than the applicants and the applicants could remain in the village without building a new house. Members expressed some sympathy with the applicant's but did not agree that the reasons given for the application did not constitute very special circumstances It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused planning permission as per the reasons set out in the report. RESOLVED: That application 16/02119/1 be REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. |
Agreed | ||
| 63 |
16/01814/1HH - THE VICARAGE, CHURCH LANE, BARKWAY, ROYSTON Report Plan The Senior Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. She advised that there were three updates to the report as follows: ECOLOGY Paragraph 4.3.6 of the report advised that preliminary bat assessments were awaited. This had now been received and advised that the preliminary bat assessment had found evidence of bats within the roof space and a mitigation and enhancement plan had been received. As a result of investigations they have requested an additional condition and an informative regarding the bats. The Senior Planning Officer advised Members that this was a large building within the Conservation Area but that it was well screened from public view by the hedging around the site. Mr Dominico Padalino, Applicant's Agent, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee. He informed Members that, following an extensive property search, his client had found their ideal house which was in a perfect location for them to settle themselves and their children. It also had ample land on which to stable their horses. Whilst the property offered good accommodation, it appeared that most of the original features had been lost over the years and the building was in need of some care and attention. They had been working closely with a conservation architect with a view to restoring much of the main house whilst designing sympatric extensions which would not detract from the original design or character. The eastern part of the dwelling had some issue that required rebuilding and it was considered that this would be the ideal place for the extensions. Much of the proposed basement would house sizeable heating plant equipment and irrigation tanks to allow the full functionality of a house this size without impacting on the family living space. The provision of a basement, although more expensive, prevented the need for multiple extensions to house this equipment and helped retain the charm of the building. They had worked closely with the NHDC Conservation Officer and took on board his comments and made minor enhancements to further enhance the design such as mirroring the current chimney stacks in the new build thus echoing the existing style. The various planning policies had been complied with and the conditions contained in the Officer's report were fully supported. The Policies allowed for extensions, providing they were sympathetic to the building in height and proportion. The proposal sat within the Barkway Conservation Area and sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy were satisfied. Mr Padalino concluded by urging Members to support the application in line with the report of the Planning Officer. It was proposed and seconded that the application be granted planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report and the additional ecological condition regarding bats. RESOLVED: That application 16/01814/1HH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the additional condition, reason and Ecology Informative detailed below. ADDITIONAL CONDITION AND REASON 9. Prior to the commencement of the development works which affect the roof, three follow-up dusk emergence / dawn re-entry surveys should be undertaken during May - September (inclusive) to determine the use of the building by bats and inform suitable mitigation. The outline mitigation strategy should be modified as appropriate based on the survey results and then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details. Reason: To ensure the continued ecological functionality of bats and their roosts is maintained in accordance with European and National legislation. ADDITIONAL ECOLOGY INFORMATIVE Bats and their roosts remain protected at all times under National and European law. If bats or evidence for them is discovered during the course of any works, work must stop immediately and advice sought on how to proceed lawfully from: Natural England: 0300 060 3900 or an appropriately qualified and experienced Ecologist. |
Agreed | ||
| 64 |
16/01981/1HH - 5 ST MARYS CLOSE, PIRTON, HITCHIN Report Plan The Area Planning Officer (Richard Tiffin) presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. He advised that the application was for a single storey, pitched roof extension to the side of the property and drew attention to Paragraph 4.3.8 of the report and explained that the reason that planning permission was required was the small amount of the proposed development that extended beyond the side elevation of the existing building. The Chairman advised that the registered speaker for this item had given their apologies. Members asked for clarification regarding what amount of the proposed development would be visible from the street. The Area Planning Officer advised that very little of the proposed development would be visible from the street. It was proposed and seconded that the application be granted planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report. RESOLVED: That application 16/01981/1HH be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. |
Agreed | ||
| 65 |
16/02661/1NMA - HINDSMOUNT, MAYDENCROFT LANE, GOSMORE, HITCHIN Report Plan The Area Planning Officer (Richard Tiffin) presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation. It was proposed and seconded that the application be granted planning permission as per the conditions and reasons set out in the report. RESOLVED: That application 16/02661/1NMA be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager. |
Agreed | ||
| 66 |
PLANNING APPEALS Report Appeal Decision Letter - 29 The Chilterns, Hitchin The Area Planning Officer (Richard Tiffin) presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of Planning Appeals. He advised that three appeals had been lodged and one appeal decision received. The appeal decision regarding Potters Heath would be reported to the next meeting of this Committee together with an appeal decision received regarding Police Row, Therfield, for which the Planning Inspector had comprehensively dismissed the appeal. RESOLVED: That the report on Planning Appeals be noted. |
Agreed | ||